Cain
filed the Complaint in this action on December 19, 2016, and
the Amended Complaint on August 18, 2017. (Docs. 1, 27). In
her Amended Complaint, Cain alleges that the Defendants
violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. (Id. at
2-6).

CSG was
served on December 21, 2016. (Doc. 6). On January 24, 2017,
after CSG failed to appear, answer, or otherwise defend, Cain
filed a Motion for Entry of Default. (Doc. 10). The Clerk
filed the Entry of Default against CSG on January 25, 2017.
(Doc. 12).

Jonathan
Frank was served on May 2, 2017. (Doc. 19). On May 24, 2017,
after Jonathan Frank failed to appear, answer, or otherwise
defend, Cain filed a Motion for Entry of Default. (Doc. 20).
The Clerk filed the Entry of Default against Jonathan Frank
on May 26, 2017. (Doc. 22).

On
August 4, 2017, Cain moved to dismiss his class claims
against CSG. (Doc. 25). The Court then ordered Cain “to
file an amended complaint that eliminates the class
allegations in Count IV.” (Doc. 26 at 3). Cain was
instructed to seek leave from the Court in order to make any
other change. (See id.). Cain filed her Amended
Complaint on August 18, 2017. (Doc. 27). She filed her Motion
for Default Judgment that is the subject of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order on February 15, 2018. (Doc. 28). As support
for the Motion for Default Judgment, Cain submitted an
affidavit. (Doc. 28-2).

The
Court ordered the Defendants to show cause by April 11, 2018,
why the motion should not be granted. (Doc. 29). The Court
received an untimely opposition to Cain's Motion on May
4, 2018. (Doc. 36). In the opposition, Defendants ask the
Court to deny the motion for default judgment and allow them
to file an answer. (Seeid.). Defendants
give two reasons for such relief. (See Id. at 1-2).
First, they argue that “service was improper” for
both Defendants. (See Id. at 1). Second, they argue
that “defaults are disfavored and cases should be
judged on the merits.” (Id. at 2). The Court
will treat the opposition as a motion to set aside the
Clerk's entry of default.

II.
Standard

“The
court may set aside an entry of default for good
cause.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c). The Eleventh Circuit has
explained that:

“ ‘Good cause' is a mutable standard, varying
from situation to situation. It is also a liberal one-but not
so elastic as to be devoid of substance.” Coon v.
Grenier, 867 F.2d 73, 76 (1st Cir.1989). We recognize
that “good cause” is not susceptible to a precise
formula, but some general guidelines are commonly applied.
Id. Courts have considered whether the default was
culpable or willful, whether setting it aside would prejudice
the adversary, and whether the defaulting party presents a
meritorious defense. Rafidain Bank, 15 F.3d at 243;
see also Robinson v. United States, 734 F.2d 735,
739 (11th Cir.1984). We note, however, that these factors are
not “talismanic, ” and that courts have examined
other factors including whether the public interest was
implicated, whether there was significant financial loss to
the defaulting party, and whether the defaulting party acted
promptly to correct the default. E.g., Dierschke v.
O'Cheskey, 975 F.2d 181, 184 (5th Cir.1992).
“Whatever factors are employed, the imperative is that
they be regarded simply as a means of identifying
circumstances which warrant the finding of ‘good
cause' to set aside a default.” Id.
However, if a party willfully defaults by displaying either
an intentional or reckless disregard for the judicial
proceedings, the court need make no other findings in denying
relief. Shepard Claims Service, Inc. v. William Darrah
& Associates, 796 F.2d 190, 194-95 (6th Cir.1986).

Compania Interamericana Export-Import, S.A. v. Compania
Dominicana deAviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951-52
(11th Cir. 1996). “Where a plaintiff's service of
process is insufficient, a court may have good cause to set
aside an entry of default because the court lacked personal
jurisdiction over the defendant and, as a result, had no
power to render judgment against it.” Thomas v.
Bank of America, N.A., 557 Fed.Appx. 873, 875 (11th Cir.
2014) (citing sources).

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.